Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces to Invest in Clean Energy Technology | Hacker News Reader

Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces to Invest in Clean Energy Technology

techcrunch.com

74 pointsPerados21 comments

Classic TechCrunch.

* Watch the Washington Post feed, notice the article trending in tech "Obama, Bill Gates to lead major effort to spur spending on climate research"

* Change to a more tech-friendly, less politicized title "Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces To Invest in Clean Energy Technology"

* Include a broken link ("http://mission-innovation.net/") to first of the two organizations noted, Mission Innovation.

* Don't bother linking to the organization's actual website http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/

I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN, just wish we could link to a better source.

That's really how media works. Everyone reposts the same story in their version.

Here is the headline from Indian news paper for the same: Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani and others join hands to give push to clean energy through innovations.

Notice that Mark Zuckerberg is missing in headline and 2 Indian billionaires are added.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-w...

Edit: If you read the timeofindia article, you would think its a initiative pushed by India. If you read the comments on the article, you would think Indian Prime Minister Modi is making it happen.

Two days later, my local paper's technology writer sees the article in hacker news and rewrites it as original content for the print media.

The cosmic ballet goes on...

> I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN

An excellent thing to be, even if some bitching is involved :)

There have been a bunch of submissions about this story, but as far as I can tell they all fall into the "announcement of an announcement" category, which is always fluff. Has the announcement been made for real yet?

Perhaps i misunderstand things, but i feel like carbon-neutral solutions are not the answer in the long term struggle against climate change. The entire world contributes greenhouse gasses, but only a few nations are taking steps to mitigate these emissions. Even then, the large focus is on carbon specifically. it strikes me that greenhouse-negative technologies will be the only real answer here.

CO2 is the dominant forcing greenhouse gas, and accounting on it is fairly straightforward so it makes sense to focus on that.

I agree that it's not enough though. We need both carbon neutral technology now as well as carbon capture in the future. However it is an order of magnitude or more easier to not emit now than it is to capture in the future, so we absolutely mush transition to carbon neutral as soon as possible, then use excess intermittent renewable energy to capture co2 from the air. We also need to incentivize that with carbon credits of some sort so that there are market forces.

That's what Paris is about, and why we need to be pushing our US politicians to ask for much more than what the Obama administration is going to ask for. We need much more aggressive strategies.

To be fair to Obama, it matters little what he does or does not want. He has no hope in getting anything really meaningful approved by the Senate before his term is over. It is just not going to happen.

Senators, 'dellow felegates', in response to this direct threat to the Republic, Mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.

It is not a case of either/or but both. We need to stop dumping GHG into the atmosphere and we need to work on ways to remove the GHG we have already dumped. We need to do both.

As I posted yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10642179

WELL DONE CHAPS! Hopefully this will push governments into contributions of equivalent relative magnitude - ie many times the 20 BN that ZuckerGates are valiantly contributing.

Bill Gates's intro video on the project: https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4

"$20 billion by 2020"

The Pentagon will spend 150 times this by 2020.

It sounds like they're taking this climate change very seriously...

If you're comparing them to the Pentagon then I'd say them entering the arena in earnest compared to their individual contributions is rather significant. And you have some smart people involved.

If they want to "waste" their own money trying to save the planet god bless them.

Did you not read the article before commenting?

> According to the Washington Post, the 19 countries that have already joined Mission Innovation will increase their annual spending on clean-energy research and development to $20 billion by 2020.

I believe odzhan was trying to show that 20 billion dollars between 19 countries still isn't that significant when compared to other budgets.

Better just be thankless masses then, nevermind.

Republicans control Congress, and Congress controls the spending of the US.

No matter how much Obama wanted to increase spending on clean energy, he simply doesn't have the power to move a huge amount of money.

Source on the $3 trillion Pentagon budget?

The US is budgeted to spend $637 billion on the military in 2015. If the same is true for 2016-2019, the US will have spent $2.5 trillion. If you include 2020, then it's more than $3 trillion.

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId...

(Or you could just Google it...)

US military budget is approx. 600B dollars per year. Multiply by 5 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar...

just googling and found this, there are some tables in the document with pretty big numbers

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudge...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com